Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy

Tim Stanley outlines the problem with Rand Paul’s ongoing efforts to distinguish himself from his father:

However, the strategy carries risks. The biggest is that he might alienate the very Paulite movement that made the Paul Family Brand what it is today….They’re stubborn, angry individualists who are suckers for ideological purity. Ron Paul’s charisma was rooted in his lack of charisma: he appealed to those who favour ideas over personality. The cult of philosophy is so powerful within Paulism that if Rand moves too far too fast towards the centre, he could lose financial and political backing. And unless he enters the 2016 cycle with that Paulite base on his side … what has he got?

Many Ron Paul supporters won’t object too strongly to relatively minor shifts on Sen. Paul’s part, but there are bound to be limits to how far he can move away from the foreign policy views that drew a lot of them to support his father in the first place. Stanley says that “he’s building up to a significant speech outlining an approach to foreign policy that distances himself from Ron Paul’s legacy.” To some extent, that already happened during his election campaign and over the last two years, but this suggests that he will be putting even more distance between himself and his father’s views. We’ll have to wait for the speech to see just how much, but there have lately been some unfortunate hints of what we can expect.

If his recent vote on “enhancing” Iran sanctions is any indication, this distancing appears to involve endorsing some of the worst elements of the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. I don’t expect Sen. Paul to be a lone nay vote on most bills, but I generally do expect him to vote against tightening sanctions on other countries. As James Bovard pointed out in his recent TACreview of Sen. Paul’s book, he has also inexplicably praised the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute. Backing useless sanctions and cheering on democracy promotion are hardly encouraging signs. Any one of these by itself may not be enough to drive away his most likely supporters. However, if these are signs of what can be expected in the future, eventually it will become a deal-breaker for a large number of them. Sen. Paul already unavoidably lost some of his father’s supporters because of his Romney endorsement, but many of those that continued to give him the benefit of the doubt until now will lose patience with him more quickly if he morphs into a more conventional Republican on foreign policy.

As for the Israel visit, Paul may be hoping that he will minimize criticism of his position on aid to Israel by going there. That’s possible, but it is just as likely that the criticism will increase because he has made a point of drawing attention to it. As long as he opposes the hawks in the party on any one thing, whether it is on foreign aid or military spending or something else, they will continue to distrust him. Meanwhile, a sustained effort to placate the party’s hawks will convince a lot of his potential supporters to stay home.

The writer seems to miss Ron did have charmisa but it was the country doctor charm that endured him so much to his supporters. Also he seems to miss that Ron did very well in Iowa and might have won without Fox News Santorum blitz. (He still does not win the primary.) Rand really does not have that benefit here. It was Ron youngest and strongest supporters that loved his anti warfare and welfare state speeches. The young focused more on how big military leads to big government.

Unfortunately, I am on fence if Rand succumbs to standard tea party that we need big military as part of the conservative movement.

Sen. Paul’s explanation included a very good argument against attacking Iran, but did not include any argument for why his vote for sanctions made sense. Essentially, he wanted to be seen as “doing something” on the nuclear issue, and it seems that he thinks intensifying cruel and useless sanctions is an acceptable option. Sometimes there is “a lot of murkiness” on certain issues, as Paul says. This isn’t one of them.

“The writer seems to miss Ron did have charmisa but it was the country doctor charm that endured him so much to his supporters.”

I was about to make a similar comment. Snarking observers have long derided Ron Paul for an alleged “lack of charisma,” when in fact the power of Ron Paul’s personality is what propelled him to notoriety in 2007. Now he is among the most influential figures at the GOP grassroots.

Pontificating about Ron Paul’s supposed “lack of charisma” seems to be just another relic of the media’s generally dismissive attitude toward Ron Paul.

In fact, over the 2008 and 2012 GOP primary cycles, Ron Paul demonstrated a political acumen far superior to Mitt Romney.

Yes, he thinks supporting a bad policy is better than supporting an even worse one. He doesn’t give a convincing explanation for why supporting the bad policy is the best thing for him to be doing. His answer boils down to, “Well, at least I don’t support attacking Iran.” He’s one who made the reference to murkiness in order to defend his vote for sanctions.

If readers listen to the video, Senator Rand Paul’s qualifying additional statements are: “I took the middle ground on sanctions ‘ to see ‘ if sanctions work.” Operative Words: ‘to see’. He also went on to say that there are times they make things worse, as did sanctions against Japan, leading up to WWII and the blockade against Germany after WWI.

The Senate has proved to be a powerfully corrupting influence, at least compared to the House. In the House, it’s easier to be a backbencher. In the Senate, your 1/50th of the vote and closer to Leviathan.

Sanctions rarely if ever work to coerce another regime into doing what Washington wants it to do. It’s foolish to think that this needs to be tested again. Sanctions typically make things worse for the civilian population of the targeted country, because this is what they’re normally *designed* to do. Paul understands that other coercive and intrusive actions can backfire and work to the benefit of the regime, but he seems not to appreciate that sanctions can strengthen the regime’s position inside the country. The argument for sanctions on Iran doesn’t suddenly become tenable or persuasive because Paul agrees with it.

I defended him when he supported Romney but enhancing sanctions on a country that is using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is wrong. How can that be worthy of sanctions when there are four nuclear-weapon states that are not under the NPT? Iran signed it. Rand fell too far from the tree for my taste. If Iran retaliates inside the US after the bombing part of the war starts what does he think is going to happen to liberty in this country? Can he comprehend that our civil liberties are endanger because of the foreign policy he supports?

“The bill enjoys broad and enthusiastic support among Democrats and Republicans. But there were two strong voices of dissent — Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Republican Representative Ron Paul of Texas.

Paul said the calls for tough sanctions amount to an act of war, and that it sounds all too familiar to him.

“It is so similar to what we went through in the early part of this last decade when we were beating the war drums to go to war against Iraq. And it was all a facade. There was no danger from Iraq. So this is what we are doing, beating the war drums once again,” Paul said.

Paul and Kucinich said the sanctions would hurt the Iranian people, and that they would put the United States on a path to war with Iran.”

let’s see, guy who mimics conservative talking points vs. “everything is Big Government’s fault” guy to the point where he can’t give a decent answer on the uninsured…yeah, i’ll take the unprincipled one over the insane principled one.

The real “murkiness” Sen. Paul may be seeing is the difference between believing something and taking a public position. He probably either feels supporting sanctions gives him a stronger hand in opposing possible military action, (though it does the opposite) or that opposing sanctions would be too risky politically, especially in the Republican party, which might be true. He may not be as influential as his father but he is more powerful as a Senator, in theory.

Neither of those explanations are a defence of Rand Paul by me, by the way. I just think it’s less likely he believes sanctions will achieve anything good in and of themselves.

But then that might be the same basic position as a lot of politicians who support sanctions against Iran. The nature of the job is to elevate one’s career above all else, even eventually to rationalise that you must, because you believe the good you will do in the future will outweigh the bad being done now.

I’m not convinced that Rand Paul is any less cynical than a typical D.C. pol, but I can believe he wants the U.S. to be less pushy overseas and I think his sanctions votes eat at him. More, I think Rand Paul can be a dominant political figure, even president, with that approach. But he faces two difficult realities:

1) The reason for the ridiculous unanimous support for Iran sanctions and other foreign-policy bellicosity has mostly to do with how pols, the defense industry, lobbyists and media have trained many Americans to be fearful and knee-jerk hyperpatriotic over the years. The GOP has routinely exploited that condition as a wedge issue for at least three generations now (not that Democrats have shown much spine in resisting them). Look at the preposterous suggestions of anti-Americanism thrown daily at the fairly hawkish President Obama.

2) The more Rand Paul veers loudly and eloquently off the mainstream GOP line, the more directly he kicks at one of the party’s declining number of dependable wedge-issue tent poles: the claim to love America more and defend it better than do Democrats. Keep kicking and Rand Paul is likely to win over plenty of young people and other libertarianish big-government-big-military skeptics — and bring down the tent on the rest of his party. Much as I think the GOP needs to do this to ensure its long-term survival (oh, and for the good of the country, as if that matters), it would bring immense pain to the party in the short run. His colleagues would not appreciate that.

Its clear that Rand is trying to position himself for a 2016 run (it still seems too early) and is precariously trying to balance an already established base while trying to net the so called mainstream conservative crowd. I don’t know if I could support him. Some of my libertarian friends tried to convince that Romney was closer to Ron Paul and that compromise was necessary (I did disagree, I found Obama a more suitable candidate). Now they are trying to say that Rand is closer to Ron Paul and, although there are some major differences on policy, it would be best just to ignore them. Maybe I would be best imaging Rand is locked in some Realpolitik struggle. Maybe we should believe that this is all just posturing. I am not convinced

“he Senate has proved to be a powerfully corrupting influence, at least compared to the House. In the House, it’s easier to be a backbencher. In the Senate, your 1/50th of the vote and closer to Leviathan.”

You’ve sorta hit upon a key issue. In the House, Ron Paul could pretty much spout off and vote the way that he wanted.
A Representative’s vote is generally not worth a bucket of warm spit, so Ron Paul could talk cheap words and cast cheap votes.

As we’ve seen, one Senator can cause lots of problems, because it takes 60 votes to override a fillibuster/hold/etc.
I’ve figured that this puts the Paul family to the test – what sort of blocking big government will Paul the Younger do?

My bet from when he was first elected is ‘nothing worth a buck of warm spit’, and I haven’t seen anything to prove me wrong.

It’s not that the Senate is ‘one step closer to Leviathan’, it’s a matter of being put the actual test when one has the power to actually do something.

Wow. We’ve come a long way since Norman Mailer told Pat Buchanan to give up on the GOP as it would always be controlled by the bankster political class, and to run third party and Pat eventually obliged, via the Reform.
Yeah, I know-only to ultimately return….a few wars and bloody interventionist meddling Pat (and Perot) opposed intervening….

Billy Kristol is playing some of the old hits over at WS. He’s trying to get the band back together, maybe put on some shows. It’s not the same, though. Doesn’t have that same punk attitude like it used to.

The US Senate voted 90-1 early Saturday ( September 21,2012 ) on a non-binding resolution to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Voting against the resolution was Sen. Rand Paul, arguing that the bill was a de-facto declaration of war.

The bill states that it should not be misinterpreted as an endorsement for military force or war. But as the only senator to vote against the resolution, Paul argued that the resolution would eventually lead to war with Iran.”

“The US Senate voted 90-1 early Saturday ( September 21,2012 ) on a non-binding resolution to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Voting against the resolution was Sen. Rand Paul, arguing that the bill was a de-facto declaration of war.”

It’s not so much who Rand endorses or how he’s posturing himself to make a run for President. It’s that Rand is becoming a very conventional politician. And while his views make him better than most, it also means there isn’t the subversive thrill in supporting him that one got with supporting his father who was unconventional to the max. This may well get him further politically than his father ever got and maybe that’s idea (it certainly is for the claque around him). But I don’t believe Rand 2016 will have the same kind of hardcore support his father’s campaigns had. Jesse Benton can shoot his mouth off about people with “Gasden Flags” but all should remember those very people and the sacrifices they made made Rand’s political career possible. Thus, Rand is going to have to win early in states like Iowa, New Hampshire in order to have any shot at the nomination otherwise he’ll get out a lot earlier than his father did.

The difficulty for those of us who support Rand is that, while easily being in the top 1% of all US Senators, he still maintains this soft (hard?) spot for Iran. He’s been good on Libya, Syria, the 2012 NDAA, wiretapping, etc, etc., but he has been ‘talking tough’ on Iran going all the way back to his campaign.

I guess when/if we ever see a Declaration of War with Iran, we’ll see where his values lie. Of course, we don’t actually pass Declarations of War anymore….

I guess to view it in a charitable light, Rand Paul is, to use a foreign policy metaphor, not willing to let the T-55s through the Fulda Gap, but realizes he has to compromise to end the Cuban Missile Crisis and can’t intervene militarily in the Hungarian Revolution. In other words he’s choosing his fights so that he doesn’t cave on foreign policy lines in the sand (i.e. invading Iran), but making the vote on Iran sanctions 93-1 instead of 94-0, or refusing to endorse Romney, does nothing to stop them and essentially withdraws him from contention as a presidential candidate in the future.